I tried this in FF3, IE7 and Chrome. Seems to work fine. The outerHTML =
'' will be overhead for browsers that dont need it, but not sure how it
compares to the overhead of the extra jQuery.browser.ie if statement.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok, thanks for the explanation, we'll look into this for 1.3.
>
> What about:
>
> if (this.parentNode)
> this.parentNode.removeChild(this);
> this.outerHTML = '';
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Chris Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Both "leak" but not in the classic sense. IE uses 2 separate instances
> of
> > the DOM. One is DOM in javascript, One is the DOM of the HTML that's
> > rendered in the browser. This leak we are seeing is not orphaned tags
> > (Which is what programs like sieve keep track of). The leak is
> javascript
> > DOM memory that's being used but not reclaimed once the DOM elements are
> > removed. Reason being, in certain cases IE will crash if a code block
> tries
> > to reference DOM elements that no longer exists. In general using
> > removeChild in IE causes the browser to do a poor job identifying what
> > references can and cannot be garbage collected. These inner/outer HTML
> > methods seem to force IE's hand into doing a better (although not great)
> job
> > of cleaning up.
> >
> > After running the tests at 2000 iterations it seems as though the outer
> > method is just about as effcient as cleaning up as the innerHTML method.
> >
> > Essentially it comes down to changing the remove method to be the
> following:
> >
> > remove: function( selector ) {
> > if ( !selector || jQuery.filter( selector, [ this ] ).r.length )
> {
> > // Prevent memory leaks
> > jQuery( "*", this ).add(this).each(function(){
> > jQuery.event.remove(this);
> > jQuery.removeData(this);
> > });
> > if (this.parentNode) {
> > if (jQuery.browser.msie) {
> > this.outerHTML = '';
> > }
> > else {
> > this.parentNode.removeChild(this);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > }
> > }
> >
> > the "evalScript" and "clean" methods also use removeChild under the hood
> but
> > im not so sure they get used often enough to warrent a change.
> >
> > -Chris
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> So... let me get this right, both leak but innerHTML leaks less ?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:45 AM, Chris Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > After a good deal of testing at 250 test runs it seems that the
> >> > innerHTML
> >> > "garbage bin" and outerHTML methods are almost identical when it comes
> >> > to
> >> > memory usage. outerHTML uses a VERY small amount more (around 36k).
> I
> >> > am
> >> > going to rerun the test at 2000 iterations to see if it makes a
> >> > difference.
> >> >
> >> > Again, sorry for the delay, work is very hectic these days. I should
> be
> >> > able to report back tomorrow during the day (fingers crossed).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Just as extra info, it seems that innerHTML with IE does a good work,
> >> >> it
> >> >> is like minimizing the window and maximizing it back. The problem is
> >> >> that it
> >> >> is not usable to force the CollectGarbage (that does not do its work
> as
> >> >> expected to me ...) ... does anybody else has bad experience with IE
> >> >> and
> >> >> ExtJS over jQuery? :D
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Ariel I did a quick test with I don't remember which document and I
> >> >>> received an error.
> >> >>> Unfortunately I had no time to investigate but I have exactly the
> same
> >> >>> problem, "empty does not empty" at all.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If the trick with outerHTML works I'll try tomorrow in my
> application
> >> >>> and
> >> >>> I'll tell you.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Regards
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> So how do you know some cause errors if you haven't tested yet ?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
> >> >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>>> > I guess textNodes, html itself and probably iframes.
> >> >>>> > I'll tell you as soon as I can test stuff :-)
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Ariel Flesler <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >>>> > wrote:
> >> >>>> >>
> >> >>>> >> Which nodes generate an error ?
> >> >>>> >>
> >> >>>> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
> >> >>>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>>> >> > Hi Ariel, is this what you would apply for each nested node in
> >> >>>> >> > case
> >> >>>> >> > of
> >> >>>> >> > $.empty() ?
> >> >>>> >> >
> >> >>>> >> > The only problem I can see is with nodes that generate an
> error
> >> >>>> >> > if
> >> >>>> >> > outerHTML
> >> >>>> >> > property is assigned and a try catch could decrease execution
> >> >>>> >> > speed.
> >> >>>> >> >
> >> >>>> >> > Any ideas?
> >> >>>> >> >
> >> >>>> >> > Regards
> >> >>>> >> >
> >> >>>> >> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Ariel Flesler
> >> >>>> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >>>> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>> >> >>
> >> >>>> >> >> Well... I concluded a nicer solution and asked you to try it.
> >> >>>> >> >> But you never replied...
> >> >>>> >> >>
> >> >>>> >> >> http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/3553
> >> >>>> >> >>
> >> >>>> >> >> if (this.parentNode)
> >> >>>> >> >> this.parentNode.removeChild( this );
> >> >>>> >> >> if (jQuery.browser.msie)
> >> >>>> >> >> this.outerHTML = "";
> >> >>>> >> >>
> >> >>>> >> >> --
> >> >>>> >> >> Ariel Flesler
> >> >>>> >> >> http://flesler.blogspot.com/
> >> >>>> >> >>
> >> >>>> >> >> On Nov 25, 3:28 pm, "Chris Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >>>> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>> >> >> > Hey Nick,
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > this was never completely resolved. The edited jQuery
> source
> >> >>>> >> >> > I
> >> >>>> >> >> > was
> >> >>>> >> >> > playing
> >> >>>> >> >> > around with is
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > here:
> http://www.outsidethediv.com/memory-leak-test/js/jquery-1.2.6-updated.js
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > You can try swapping your jquery include with it and see if
> >> >>>> >> >> > that
> >> >>>> >> >> > helps
> >> >>>> >> >> > at
> >> >>>> >> >> > all. It seemed to help out a good deal in my case but was
> >> >>>> >> >> > rather
> >> >>>> >> >> > inconclusive in smaller stripped down tests.
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Nick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >>>> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > I am having a very similar problem. Can someone give
> more
> >> >>>> >> >> > > details
> >> >>>> >> >> > > as
> >> >>>> >> >> > > how to modify the JQ source file to fix this?
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > I have noticed (in Drip) that when I refresh the page,
> the
> >> >>>> >> >> > > DOM
> >> >>>> >> >> > > nodes
> >> >>>> >> >> > > duplicate. This doesn't make any sense to me since I
> know
> >> >>>> >> >> > > JQ
> >> >>>> >> >> > > unbinds
> >> >>>> >> >> > > everything on page unload in IE. This node duplication
> is
> >> >>>> >> >> > > leading
> >> >>>> >> >> > > to
> >> >>>> >> >> > > some serious memory issues in my app that needs to run
> for
> >> >>>> >> >> > > up
> >> >>>> >> >> > > to 8
> >> >>>> >> >> > > hours straight without a browser restart.
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > Any help would be much appreciated.
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > Thanks,
> >> >>>> >> >> > > Nick
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > On Oct 24, 12:50 pm, chris robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >>>> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > Hey all,
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > I believe I have found a leak and have the beginnings
> of
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > a
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > solution
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > to
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > it.
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > I'm writing an app that preforms ajax searching that
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > returns
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > pretty
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > large result sets. I render them via jQuery into a
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > tbody.
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > once
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > a
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > subsequent search is performed I call tbody.empty() and
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > append
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > the
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > new
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > results. I created a test harness that would perform a
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > predefined
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > search 5000 times in a row with a good amount of time
> in
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > between.
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > I noticed that IE was allocating quite a bit of memory
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > and
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > never
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > reclaiming it. At first I thought it was a closure or
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > circular
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > reference on my part. Once I was sure I had removed
> them
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > I
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > ran
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > more
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > test, sure enough it was still allocating a lot of
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > memory.
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > Through
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > a
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > lot of research I found this articlehttp://
> >> >>>> >> >> > >www.scribd.com/doc/2159768/Ajax-Part2
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > which says that JS's removeChild will leak in IE.
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > Microsoft
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > uses
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > another method to remove which is essentially this:
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > function DestroyElement(elem) {
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > var garbageBin =
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > document.getElementById('IEMemoryLeakGarbageBin');
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > if(garbageBin === undefined) {
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > garbageBin =
> document.createElement("DIV");
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > garbageBin.id = "IEMemoryLeakGarbageBin";
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > garbageBin.style.display = 'none';
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > document.body.appendChild(garbageBin);
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > }
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > garbageBin.appendChild(elem);
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > garbageBin.innerHTML = "";
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > }
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > I went through jQuery 1.2.6 and replaced the
> removeChild
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > references
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > with a check for IE, and if so use this, else use the
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > regular
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > removeChild. After doing so and rerunning my test I
> saw
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > drastic
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > improvements in memory being reallocated after my
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > elements
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > were
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > removed from the document.
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > I also ran these test on FF, with or without this
> change
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > it
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > ran
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > the
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > same way, recollecting memory correctly.
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > this is only seems to be a drastic performance increase
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > if
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > you
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > are
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > creating 1000+ dom elements and binding events to them,
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > but,
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > the
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > app
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > I
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > am writing has to be able to run all day with out
> leaving
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > or
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > refreshing the page.
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > I just thought the Dev team might be interested in my
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > findings.
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > I
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > plan on striping this down and writing conclusive tests
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > and
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > documentation over the weekend.
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> > > > -Chris
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >>
> >> >>>> >> >
> >> >>>> >> >
> >> >>>> >> > >
> >> >>>> >> >
> >> >>>> >>
> >> >>>> >>
> >> >>>> >>
> >> >>>> >> --
> >> >>>> >> Ariel Flesler
> >> >>>> >> http://flesler.blogspot.com
> >> >>>> >>
> >> >>>> >>
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > >
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> Ariel Flesler
> >> >>>> http://flesler.blogspot.com
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ariel Flesler
> >> http://flesler.blogspot.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ariel Flesler
> http://flesler.blogspot.com
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
